State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 07 September 1943 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions and appeal from Superior Court, Oxford County.
Anthony Smith and Edward Poirier were convicted of rape, and they appeal and bring exceptions.
Appeals denied, exceptions overruled, and judgment for State against both respondents.
Before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, MURCHIE, and CHAPMAN, JJ.
Theodore Gonya, County Arty., of Rumford, for the State.
Edward J. Beauchamp, of Lewiston (John G. Marshall, of Auburn, on the brief), for respondents.
The respondents appeal from convictions of the crime of rape and also present exceptions to certain rulings of the presiding Justice.
The Appeals.
The State contended that the crime was committed during the evening of February 22, 1942, in the town of Norway in Oxford County. Its testimony in support of the charge came almost wholly from Violet L. Poland, eighteen years old. According to her story she and her friend, Mr. Smith (not the respondent), were at Mac's Roller Skating Pavilion in Oxford. About nine o'clock in the evening she went across the road to call upon her friend, Ann Mayberry. She said: She said there was another man in the car (respondent Smith) who was in the driver's seat. She had never seen either of them before. They had a gallon of old cider in the car, a part of which had been drunk, and on their way to Norway they continued to drink and tried to get her to drink with them. Before reaching Norway she testified that respondent Poirier “forced” her “by the cement bridge,” that they then continued on to a vacant space “behind Jo's restaurant, in Norway,” where she testified, “They both forced me.” Later in the evening, she said, they took her “up on by South Paris, in the woods there somewhere, on a cross road,” where Poirier forced her again. They finally left her on Pigeon Hill in Oxford and from there she walked home, a distance of two miles. Upon arrival she immediately got in touch with State Trooper Haskell, to whom she related what had taken place. She claimed injuries to her shoulder from being held “against the door in the car” and to her wrist, “where they would hold on it so tight.”
It is unnecessary to state other facts in detail related by her. If believed, her relation of what took place was legally sufficient to constitute the crime of rape as against both respondents.
The respondents contended that no crime either was consummated or attempted (the indictment contained charges both of rape and assault with intent to commit rape). Their story was (as testified to by only one of them, the other not taking the stand) that they were working “at a South Portland shipyard.” Their home was in Lewiston, and on that evening they drove from Lewiston to Oxford “by Mac's Pavilion” and Norway, taking with them a gallon of cider, which they had purchased from a farmer in New Auburn. About half of it had been consumed before they reached Oxford. The defense claimed that as they were driving by the Mayberry house, Miss Poland indicated with her thumb that she would like a ride. They took her in, it was claimed, without the use of any force, she saying that she would like to ride to Norway. They contended that she voluntarily drank some of the cider.
The defense also claimed they stopped at the residence of Mary Kinsman in Norway after the time Miss Poland claimed she had been raped. Mrs. Kinsman testified that the respondents and Miss Poland did stop there between nine and ten o'clock that evening and she came out to the road in response to the blowing of their horn. She identified the respondents and related what then was said and done. She was acquainted with Miss Poland, but not with the men. She said Miss Poland was drunk, that she left the car and went back of her house to a toilet, and then returned and got into the car and drove away with them, although there was an opportunity to escape, and said nothing about having been raped. She also said that Miss Poland tried to get her to go along with her. This whole story of Mrs. Kinsman was denied in toto by Miss Poland.
Guilt of the respondents hinged largely upon the veracity of Miss Poland, respondent Smith, and Mrs. Kinsman. The jury must have believed that Miss Poland told the truth and rendered its verdict in reliance upon her testimony. The jury may well have rejected Mrs. Kinsman's story due to conflicting statements in it, especially as to the day of the claimed stopping at her home. At one point in her cross-examination she said: The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morin
...223, 227, 103 A. 359, 361; State v. Gross, 130 Me. 161, 163, 154 A. 187; State v. Brewer, 135 Me. 208, 193 A. 834; State v. Smith & Poirier, 140 Me. 44, 47, 33 A.2d 718. The testimony of Brenda that the respondent had intercourse with her prior to her 14th birthday stands uncontradicted and......
-
State v. Ernst
...There is much factual evidence in this case upon which to sustain a jury verdict of guilty of manslaughter. State v. Smith, 140 Me. 44, at page 47, 33 A.2d 718, at page 719: 'The single question befoe this Court on appeal 'is whether, in view of all the testimony, the jury, were warranted i......
-
State v. Fischer
... ... Its ability to judge the veracity of the vestimony was superior to ours. State v. Smith, 140 Me. 44, 47, 33 A.2d 718, 719 (1943). The significance of the language used by the children in describing an embarrassing discussion with an hostile adult, which Mrs. Fischer doubtless was, was one of the elements which the jury was required to determine in evaluating all the testimony in the ... ...
-
State v. Miller
...demeanor of the witness while testifying has an ability to evaluate testimony superior to ours. State v. Fischer, supra. State v. Smith, 140 Me. 44, 33 A.2d 718 (1943). Our own disclaimer of naivete concerning the existence of any universal state of truthfulness in children doubtless could ......